header-logo header-logo

12 February 2015
Issue: 7640 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Surveillance under scrutiny

GCHQ acted unlawfully when it used intelligence gathered by the US National Security Agency’s mass electronic surveillance programmes PRISM and Upstream, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal has ruled.

The relationship between the British and US intelligence agencies led to GCHQ unlawfully accessing millions of people’s private communications. The relationship between the two was discovered after civil liberties organisations brought a legal challenge in the wake of the Edward Snowden whistleblower revelations.

Last week’s ruling, Liberty & Ors v Foreign Secretary [2015] UKIPTrib 13_77-H is a landmark because it is the first time the Tribunal has found against the intelligence agencies in its 15-year history. The Tribunal was set up to consider complaints against GCHQ, MI5 and MI6.

However, the Tribunal held that GCHQ’s access to NSA intelligence is lawful from December 2014, when the secret relationship was made public.

Liberty is mounting a challenge against the Tribunal’s decision at the European Court of Human Rights—it wants more stringent safeguards on surveillance and intelligence-sharing.

Eric King, deputy director of Privacy International, says: “We must not allow agencies to continue justifying mass surveillance programs using secret interpretations of secret laws.”

However, a GCHQ statement says the judgment focused on a “discrete and purely historical issue” and “confirms the UK’s bulk interception regime was fully compliant with the right to privacy at all times, both before and at the time of the legal proceedings”. A GCHQ spokesperson says: “We are pleased that the court has once again ruled that the UK’s bulk interception regime is fully lawful. It follows the court’s clear rejection of accusations of ‘mass surveillance’ in their December judgment.”

Issue: 7640 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
back-to-top-scroll